Not uncommon for husbands to suppress real income to avoid paying wives their due: Delhi HC

Indian Express

11 hours ago

The Delhi High Court recently stated that it was a common practice in matrimonial cases for husbands to suppress or conceal their real income to avoid paying their wives their legitimate dues.
These observations were made while hearing a petition filed by Nidhi Jain against an order dated June 7, 2024, passed by a family court in Dwarka where her applications for summoning witnesses to prove her husband Ankit Jain's concealment of assets were dismissed.
'By seeking to summon the statements of accounts of family members of the respondent, the petitioner intends to bring on record the chain of diversion of funds from the sale of Noida property to establish that the said funds were used for the purchase of Shakti Nagar property by the respondent. Denying the petitioner an opportunity to prove the same would frustrate the objective of maintenance proceedings,' the Justice said.
'Matrimonial litigation, particularly where financial dependency and concealment are alleged, demands a sensitive and pragmatic approach. The documents and witnesses sought to be introduced by the petitioner are not collateral or immaterial, but rather, they directly affect the determination of maintenance, which is a matter of subsistence,' Justice Dudeja added, while setting aside the order and directing the family court to permit Nidhi to summon the witnesses.
Nidhi had claimed before the court that after her marriage in February 2012, she was subjected to domestic violence by her husband and his family to fulfill dowry demands. She also alleged that in November 2012, Ankit's family locked the matrimonial home and transferred her jewellery and cash to their accounts, deserting her without resources.
She also contended that her husband had misrepresented his financial situation throughout the trial, falsely portraying himself as having no significant income or assets.
She had submitted that Ankit had transferred assets to his family members to mislead the court and to avoid paying legitimate maintenance dues.
One example, which she cited, was the sale of a property in Noida whose sale proceeds were transferred to his family members and later utilised to purchase another property.
An application under Section 311 CrPC (power to summon material witness, or examine person present) was moved by Nidhi to prove these concealments and establish Ankit's true financial status, which was initially allowed by the family court.
On June 6, 2024, the family court dismissed her petition to summon witnesses, which compelled her to move the High Court.
On the other hand, Ankit's counsel had submitted in court that the witnesses sought to be summoned by Nidhi were not relevant to her case and that her actions were a deliberate attempt to delay the case.
'The Family Court's reliance on procedural history to justify its refusal, such as alleged delays and multiple applications, does not outweigh the petitioner's right to a fair opportunity to substantiate her claim,' the High Court ruled on July 31.